End to ski hosting in France

Going with small independant companies is the best way of getting the SKi Hosting, they don't actually employ a ski host, the Chalet host can volunteer themselves... that's what my mates do. But they Chalet host, Chef, Drive and SKi host all themsleves, but volunteer themselves to the guests.

You get fewer days ski hosting, but that's ok. I wouldn't want to ski with them everyday anyway (if i was a guest that is)

I think the concern is that chalet hosts who volunteer to show guests round will be seen as paid guides.

The problem is proving that they are doing it on a voluntary basis. The authorities seem to take the line that as they are employees it must be part of their job.

There is a world of difference between a host saying
"I'm skiing today - would you like me to show you around the resort and some of the interesting runs."
" I'm going off piste today would you like to come along?"
and
"Would you like to pay me to guide you?"

For me the latter is clearly a role for a qualified guide. For me the second probably is too.

The first is an entirely different kettle of fish. Making that require a qualified guide is essentially protectionism dressed up in health and safety clothes and as such will achieve nothing positive. I'm not going to pay some one to show me around the pistes - if someone volunteers great, if not I'll read the piste map and ask for tips on where to go.

A lot of the US resorts have volunteers who do this for free in return for their pass.

Well, obviously no Ski host should be taking people off piste (either offered by guest or host)... and if people are asking to be taken off piste then they clearly don't need the hosting, it's clearly only to show people around as it states in most terms and conditions - a completely different kettle of fish.

My mates get asked by thier guests to show them off piste routes etc... they say no, but they can book a guide if thats what the guest wants.

They go off piste on their own, without guests in tow...

I still maintain that Big Tour operators are not the way to go. Small independant companies with just 1 or 2 chalets are more subtle and have more flexibility - plus don't hire 18yo's who've got something to proove to the world

The company that are in court are a small independent.

andyhull wrote:The company that are in court are a small independent.

Makes you wonder if that is why they are in court.
Set a precedent with a small company that might not have the financial might of the major players. Someone who might fight back a little less.

Snapzzz wrote:

andyhull wrote:The company that are in court are a small independent.

Makes you wonder if that is why they are in court.
Set a precedent with a small company that might not have the financial might of the major players. Someone who might fight back a little less.

Bingo ……Good deduction my dear Watson :D

Snapzzz wrote:

andyhull wrote:The company that are in court are a small independent.

Makes you wonder if that is why they are in court.
Set a precedent with a small company that might not have the financial might of the major players. Someone who might fight back a little less.

Though it has been stated that they are being supported in the case by Crystal, Inghams, Mark Warner etc so if this was the ESF plan then it may they have bitten off more than they can manger!

andyhull wrote:The company that are in court are a small independent.

They're not 'small' they have dozens of chalets... a small, independant is one that only has 1, 2, or even 3. and is therefore more discreet because of its size